Facebook Expanding it's Power...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/technology/internet/01facebook.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=technology

The internet’s social network giant could be getting a little bit bigger in the upcoming months as it attempts to extend it’s power even further across the web. Facebook recently announced that it will soon launch Facebook Connect, a technology which allows Facebook users to participate on other websites using their Facebook ID’s. Users then have the option of re-broadcasting whatever they do, view, etc. on the third-party site to all of their friends on Facebook.  For example, lets say Facebook strikes a deal with ESPN… if you decide to log on to ESPN with your Facebook username/password, anything you view, comment on, etc. on ESPN, will be updated on your Facebook account and into the ‘news feed’ of other users, provided you give permission to make such information public. Facebook has already ensured users that there will be privacy controls so that only information approved by the users will be public to their facebook friends (thus avoiding any “Beacon”-like disasters).

            In reading the above article from the New York Times, I question the purpose of this new tool. Is it for the sake of increasing revenues? One would think so. The pressure is undoubtedly on for Facebook to prove that they are worth their ‘value’ and can generate increased revenues. However, there is no cash exchanged between the sites, thus no direct monetary profits to gain. And, while the article points out that Connect will undoubtedly increase traffic on the site, and consequently increase ad revenue, Facebook has maintained that the company has no plans to explore any other advertising potential with this new platform. So, can Facebook really generate significant profits from Facebook Connect?

            I think it all depends on the success of this new application. If the majority of facebook users do actively use Facebook Connect, then Facebook will be adding an entirely new element to its product. As people click around on various websites, such information will be fed and shared via facebook, essentially allowing facebook to collect the data that advertisers want (ie. What products are most people viewing? What is the target audience for a specific product?). 

And, although social networks have proven to be poor hosts for online advertisers in the past, I do feel as though this new application could generate more interest from advertisers who realize the direct correlation between a person’s website activity and the subsequent activity that may follow because such information was publicized through Facebook.  Even if advertisers choose not to place ads on the social network, I think that just the implementation of this application could allow Facebook to strike deals with partnering websites to demand a share of the profits those sites may receive from ads as a result of Facebook Connect. If nothing else, I think that this new application, provided it is successful, will put Facebook further ahead of it’s peers as it essentially sets out to ‘control’ the web, partnering with big time websites, and replacing all logins with their own. 

The Brain Project

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27717674/

In line with Geoffrey’s post about Patientslikeme, I recently came across the above article about a man who is using Web 2.0 products to draw attention to medical issues requiring further study. Some of you may remember the news story from a few years ago about a babysitter who admitted to shaking the newborn she was watching so much so that the child suffered both physical injuries as well as pediatric traumatic brain injury (PTBI). Now, three years later, the child’s father, Patrick Donohue has created an open format wiki so that families of those with shaken baby syndrome can post their child’s private medical records online with the hope that families are better able to cope with the syndrome, and that medical professionals (who generally know little about PTBI and neuroplasticity) may be able to learn from having all relevant information in one area on the web.

            I checked out the website,  www.thebrainproject.com, and I really think that what Patrick has done is quite amazing. In addition to being able to view dozens of medical records online, readers can also track his daughter’s progress by viewing her daily logs, etc. While I have yet to come across any comments or thoughts from those in the medical profession, I can imagine that having immediate access to such a huge amount of information raises a tremendous amount of awareness, benefiting research and advancements in the field. I also think that families are better able to manage expectations being able to see first hand what other patients go through and to learn doctor recommendations, etc. I’m curious to see the impact that this sharing of information will have on shaken baby syndrome. I think something like this could be extremely impacting, however I can imagine that it all depends on how much families and patients are willing to disclose, as I can understand the hesitancy to post such private information to the public. All in all, I think that this continues to exemplify how web 2.0 products are being used towards innovations in medicine and the health care industry. 

Facebook: idealism before profits

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article4974197.ece

Given the recent discussions we’ve had about the future of Facebook, I thought that the above article would provide some insight into the question that has been raised many times in our class: what are the company’s plans for making money? Given it’s current platform, the company does not have any real sufficient inflow of cash to support a business of it’s size, influence and capacity. The firm, which was once valued at $15 billion, is now only valued at $3.75 billion, a significant decrease in the small span of one year. While the company is expected to bring in about $300 million in revenues, mainly from display advertising on the site from a deal with Microsoft, it will have a negative cash flow of $150 million.

Despite such statistics, Mark Zuckerberg maintains that making money is not at all a motivating factor for the company and, rather than focus on increasing revenues, the company would rather build its brand and concentrate on the bottom line, which is to help “people connect with people and things that they care about”.

According to Zuckerberg, if the company is able to succeed in its mission and continue to connect people around the world, the long term benefits will be much greater than any short term economic profits. “The goal of the company is to help people to share more in order to make the world more open and to help promote understanding between people. The long-term belief is that if we can succeed in this mission then we will also be able to build a pretty good business and everyone can be financially rewarded.”

While I absolutely respect Zuckerberg for being true to his mission and resisting the temptation of huge monetary rewards, I don’t think that idealism is enough. The company undoubtedly needs to earn money in order to sustain business to maintain and grow this bottom line that Zuckerberg is working towards. While money may not motivate Zuckerberg, it is still a necessity and I wonder if he can afford to allow revenue generation to take a back seat. Zuckerberg’s product likely will not be able to realize his long term goals without more defined means of generating profit. Especially in times likes this, when companies around the globe are suffering from the current economic crisis, can Facebook survive? We can’t forget that Facebook is a business and it has to work like any other business. If it doesn’t, then it can easily fail.

What is your source for music?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/09/17/youtube.music.ap/index.html

I still remember the first time I bought a CD. I was in fifth grade and had bought Bon Jovi’s “Crossroads” album at Sam Goodys. I was so excited and remember how ‘cool’ I felt to be getting rid of my cassettes and, in keeping up with the new trend, starting a CD collection. I started buying CDs all the time, easily throwing down a few hundred dollars a years, never thinking that there would eventually be a better way to listen to music. Well, not surprisingly, I was wrong.
Fast-forward to my Junior year of high school and music sharing over the internet became the quick, easy, free solution to listening to any song, anytime. Who can forget Napster? The hype surrounding that application was for good reason. There had never been any music sharing program quite like that before. Generally speaking, consumers and artists had their opposing opinions of the program, and what ensued was an unforgettable controversy over the legality of music sharing. On the one side, you had artists drumming up lawsuits sighting copywright infringements. And, on the other side, there was the public outcry from society (tired of spending $20 on a CD) arguing that MP3 sharing is the way of the future and artists needed to understand that. The lawsuits inevitably led to the demise of Napster, but only paved the road for a new source for purchasing and listening to music... the internet.
From Napster, came ITUNES which still holds popular today. It’s hard to think of any other source competing with the apple giant but, as I’ve learned, never say never.
The attached article showcases a new method that music producers and artists alike are utilizing to promote their music to make it more readily available and accessible to their fans. That application? YouTube. YouTube has always been a source for music videos (as well as just about any other form of mainstream media you can think of), but in an attempt to gain popularity and give fans access to music not yet released, people in the music industry are putting unreleased tracks (with no accompanying video but rather just a picture or photo montage) on Youtube. They reason that the marketing, advertising and general promotional capabilities provided by such an application are unmatched, as is the low cost of such efforts.
I don’t really know what to think of this new phenomenon and the potential impact it will have on music buying, sharing, etc. While I don’t feel as though it will gain the popularity of ITUNES, mainly because it does not have the accompanying accessories of the IPOD, etc. I do feel as though it has great potential, specifically for the reasons listed by the article. There have been many times when I’ve tried to find a new song on ITUNES, only to find that it has not yet been released for sale. As a second resource, I have turned to ‘google’ to find another outlet to listen to that specific song. Almost 100 percent of the time, YouTube is the best source. Not only do I find the song, but I come across a variety of media sources associated with the artist that I stop to tune into.
Thus, I think YouTube is a great source for promoting new, unreleased music. Artists may fear that it will dampen sales, but being that you can only listen to music via Youtube on the Internet, I think that most consumers would still purchase tracks, once released in an attempt to sync songs with ipods, cds, etc. Through YouTube, people can not only listen to unreleased tracks, but can find more songs, videos, etc. of new artists and be further turned on to that musician’s music. I have had this experience, as has my music obsessed roommate. Last week, she left her IPOD at her parents house in Milton. She was freaking out, wondering how she’d go the entire week without it, but later admitted, that not having her IPOD “was secretly the best thing...” because as a replacement, she turned to Youtube and spends a majority of her workday watching/listening to live performances of her favorite artists...ones that she never knew existed.

test

test